PDA

View Full Version : Grav-cannons



Hali
13-09-2013, 04:39
Just wondering if anyone had any theories on why grav-cannons are not on the heavy weapon list for tacticals, devestators, dreadnaughts and like? Is it to sell more centurions or did they not want to make the power armor compatible model? Is it a balance issue? Or just because it's a salvo weapon and would allow squads to have a "mobile" heavy weapon? Just an oversight that will be fixed through an FAQ or white dwarf release?

If you were to house-rule it on to the list what would you price it at? Heavy flamers cost 5 more points than a flamer whereas plasma cannons and multi-meltas are exactly the same as plasmaguns and meltas respectively. Since it's just a better version of a grav-gun and doesn't change to heavy I'm thinking it needs to follow the flamer model which would make it cost the same as a lascannon. Is this fair? Centurions would still do more damage with the grav-amp but devestators would be cheaper and non-relentless.

I think the grav-cannon would be a useful but not overshadowing choice for rhino tac squads, sternguard and devestators and I'm disappointed there's not an option for it, anyone agree?

Carnage
13-09-2013, 05:08
I think they are afraid to change too much too fast, and their experience has proven that they are really really bad at pricing out new toys. I think them being limited to Cents ATM is a way for them to get a measure of how powerful they are before they go out to everyone and their brother.

lethlis
13-09-2013, 05:20
Also for the most part no options without a putting it on a sprue. Since it would be limited to vehicles mostly I would think that is a lot of recuts.

Charistoph
13-09-2013, 05:51
Well, if you wanted to house rule it, the closest weapon I can think of is the Sonic Weapons, which have a 27 point difference... Though, that may be too much, so say, 25?

MagicHat
13-09-2013, 09:32
I will go with the "no models, no rules".
Maybe a future devastator box will have them and then they will get rules for it but not now.

Hendarion
13-09-2013, 10:10
It would basically be a similar logic to asking why Falcons and Wraithlords don't have D-Cannons and simply building up own rules for them. I won't support it.

K3nn3rs
13-09-2013, 10:17
To me it's similar to the current auto-cannon scenario; accessible to vehicles/ dreads (IG sqds!) but not to SM tac/ dev sqd.
Also the lack of availability of heavy flamers for tac sqds.
So it's not like its only grav cannons- a precedent has already been set by GW.

Poseidal
13-09-2013, 10:56
SM Heavy Weapons have all been actually 'heavy'.

Heavy Flamers and Grav Cannon have move + fire modes, so are not for Tactical / Dev squads, especially as it gives the latter a chance to be a mobile shooter which isn't in their design concept.

Lord Damocles
13-09-2013, 11:20
If it was a simple 'no model = no rules' issue, bikes wouldn't have got access to Grav weaponry either.

I'd be more inclined to go with Poseidal's explanation.

MagicHat
13-09-2013, 13:13
If it was a simple 'no model = no rules' issue, bikes wouldn't have got access to Grav weaponry either.

I'd be more inclined to go with Poseidal's explanation.

There are grav-guns for power armour, which bikers wears.
The only grav-cannon they made is designed to fit the centurion only.

flemfilms
13-09-2013, 15:23
There is no reason for them to be included in Tac squads. A better question is why they aren't an option for the Sternguard since they have more options than Tac squads.

Inquisitor Kallus
13-09-2013, 16:42
because they're rare and specialised?

Losing Command
14-09-2013, 04:52
I could also imagine Grav-Cannons needing such an amount of power that the battery/generator/whatever it needs to fire a whole battle would be to large or heavy to be carried by a Space marine. Just like how Flamestorm-cannons are only available mounted on a Landraider ; the amount of fuel those things spray over their unsuspecting victims are probable so large that the tanks holding it all have to be mounted on a tank ;)

MajorWesJanson
14-09-2013, 06:26
Infantry not getting grav cannons makes sense, but it would be nice if they made them a dreadnought arm weapon option when they get around to recutting the old dreadnought sprue. Grav Cannon and Amp would seem to fit on a single arm mount, just put the amp in the back where the ammo normally goes.

Charistoph
14-09-2013, 07:41
Grav-Cannons with their type make no sense. Why make it a Salvo when anything and everything that can carry it is Relentless?

El_Machinae
14-09-2013, 13:35
It liberates it rules-wise so that it can be (possibly) used on non-Relentless models

DoctorTom
14-09-2013, 22:05
It would basically be a similar logic to asking why Falcons and Wraithlords don't have D-Cannons and simply building up own rules for them. I won't support it.

Because you haven't considered Forgeworld?

"The Warp Hunter, perhaps the rarest of Eldar tanks, sacrifices the transport capacity of the Falcon chassis to mount the terrifying firepower of a large D-Cannon, a weapon capable of tearing open the very fabric of reality and engulfing its target in the dark energies of the Warp."

It wouldn't surprise me to see some dreads or other vehicles showing up from Forgeworld at some point with grav-cannons.

Poseidal
14-09-2013, 22:43
If Forge World Grav Cannons were like how they did the Warp Hunter D-Cannon, they would be like this:

Range: 72", Strength: X, AP: 4, Heavy 2, Blast, Concussive, Gralvatron*

*Gralvatron: The cannon version of the Galvatron always wounds on a 4+, unless the target's armour save is better than 5+, in which case it wounds on a 5+.

The Marshel
15-09-2013, 10:25
If it was a simple 'no model = no rules' issue, bikes wouldn't have got access to Grav weaponry either.

I'd be more inclined to go with Poseidal's explanation.

given the compatibility between marine kits, the gravguns in the tactical squad kit could easily be used on the bike riding marines

Poseidal
15-09-2013, 10:42
The Heavy flamer is really easy to put on Devs or Tacs, but they are still not an option for these units.

The Grav Cannon is a more 'specialised' or whatever weapon, like the Heavy Flamer. You'll see it maybe on Vets or even Tac Terminators if they make the model, but I doubt you'll ever see it on a Tactical squad or Dev squad, especially thanks to Salvo.

The Marshel
15-09-2013, 13:58
The Heavy flamer is really easy to put on Devs or Tacs, but they are still not an option for these units.

Certainly true, but my point wasn't so much supporting existing model = existing rules but rather to point out that bike kits only really lack gravgun options in the same way tactical kits lack lascannon options. So if we had a power armour grav cannon part, I'd expect that somewhere in the marine dex there will be the option to equip a power armoured marine with a gravcannon (as opposed to if the specific kits for units with access to grav weaponry included/didn't include a power armour grav cannon part, those specific would/wouldn't have grav cannons)

I do agree though that the tactical weapons set a precedent to be actually "Heavy" weapons (as much as I wish tacticals could have HF). I find it really odd though that the Grav cannon is salvo 3/5 rather then just heavy 5, as the only unit with access to it will never be affected in any way by the fact that it's a salvo weapon. I guess imo it comes down to gw wanting to make centurions a more attractive choice then they would be if other units could take grav cannons

Ravening Wh0re
15-09-2013, 21:45
You also forget that certain units/characters can take away specific rules (ie necrons) and thus could possible remove the relentless from the Centurions (unlikely but possible) and have them move and fire 3 shots at half range

lethlis
19-09-2013, 01:33
Imagine ultramarine relentless grave cannon dudes for a turn......shudder

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Tamwulf
19-09-2013, 13:05
Imagine ultramarine relentless grave cannon dudes for a turn......shudder

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Sure, I can imagine it. It means my opponent just spent 250 points on three models that can't run and have no invulnerable save. That unit only has a range of 24", and really, isn't much of a threat to any vehicle, and it'll fold in close combat after one round with any unit that has a Power Fist. Centurion Devastators are a "meh" unit at the best of times.

If someone really wants to spend the points on a Command Squad, Sternguard, or Vanguard squad with Grav-pistols, all the power to them. A bit of a waste of points if you ask me. Plasma pistols would be better IMHO.

The one unit that might be a threat is a Bike squad with a couple of these things- but again, Grav weapons don't really do anything that another weapon in the Space Marine codex can't do better. Wanna kill high armor models? Use Plasma/Melta. Wanna pop vehicles? Again, Melta should be your first choice.

Stand back and take a look at the entire game, and realize anything important (special characters, big critters) with a 3+ or 2+ armor save also have a 4++ or 5++ invulnerable save, multiple wounds, feel no pain, and eternal warrior. You're not going to be able to instant gib these guys with Grav Weapons. Shooting at Terminators? Eh, they have at least a 5++ invulnerable save. Crisis Suits? You'll never get in range. You're bringing a pop gun while the Tau player has a rapid fire, insane range and tracking railgun to a gun fight. Deamons? All have invulnerable saves. Eldar? Really? You'll be wounding on a 5+.

No one really talks about the concussive rule Grav Weapons have. I wonder why? Oh yeah, this is a shooting edition, and concussive is only in Assault.

Salvo makes Grav Weapons pretty ineffective on any infantry squad except those with Relentless or Slow and Purposeful.

Time will tell, of course, but I don't see Grav Weapons being a big threat or something I'll take in every squad. It adds some variety, but it does nothing that plasma or melta can't already do.

Angry Marine
19-09-2013, 13:45
Sure, I can imagine it. It means my opponent just spent 250 points on three models that can't run and have no invulnerable save. That unit only has a range of 24", and really, isn't much of a threat to any vehicle, and it'll fold in close combat after one round with any unit that has a Power Fist. Centurion Devastators are a "meh" unit at the best of times.

If someone really wants to spend the points on a Command Squad, Sternguard, or Vanguard squad with Grav-pistols, all the power to them. A bit of a waste of points if you ask me. Plasma pistols would be better IMHO.

The one unit that might be a threat is a Bike squad with a couple of these things- but again, Grav weapons don't really do anything that another weapon in the Space Marine codex can't do better. Wanna kill high armor models? Use Plasma/Melta. Wanna pop vehicles? Again, Melta should be your first choice.

Stand back and take a look at the entire game, and realize anything important (special characters, big critters) with a 3+ or 2+ armor save also have a 4++ or 5++ invulnerable save, multiple wounds, feel no pain, and eternal warrior. You're not going to be able to instant gib these guys with Grav Weapons. Shooting at Terminators? Eh, they have at least a 5++ invulnerable save. Crisis Suits? You'll never get in range. You're bringing a pop gun while the Tau player has a rapid fire, insane range and tracking railgun to a gun fight. Deamons? All have invulnerable saves. Eldar? Really? You'll be wounding on a 5+.

No one really talks about the concussive rule Grav Weapons have. I wonder why? Oh yeah, this is a shooting edition, and concussive is only in Assault.

Salvo makes Grav Weapons pretty ineffective on any infantry squad except those with Relentless or Slow and Purposeful.

Time will tell, of course, but I don't see Grav Weapons being a big threat or something I'll take in every squad. It adds some variety, but it does nothing that plasma or melta can't already do.

Yes, Plasma and Melta do dedicated Armor and Vehicle hunting better but they can't do both and have no drawback (Gets hot on Plasma, low shots on Melta). I think Grav have a place in the army as a multipurpose gun that can do various things at a decent/good level. Isn't that the overall Marine Tactical logic anyway?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 4

daveNYC
19-09-2013, 13:50
I think lethlis was talking about a hypothetical situation where UM could take grav cannons on their regular devastators, and then use the chapter tactic to make them relentless for a turn.

Charistoph
19-09-2013, 16:10
Sure, I can imagine it. It means my opponent just spent 250 points on three models that can't run and have no invulnerable save.
Regular Devestators, not Centurions. There would be 4 models, not three. And why would you be Running when you should be Shooting (the whole point of activating the Ultramarine Devastator Doctrine)?

SinCollector
19-09-2013, 16:26
and really, isn't much of a threat to any vehicle,

Apparently, you can't imagine it. Fifteen shots, ten hit, 3.33 more hit after rerolls, you get roughly 3 sixes after rerolls and any vehicle in the game is dead.

Poseidal
19-09-2013, 16:27
Apparently, you can't imagine it. Fifteen shots, ten hit, 3.33 more hit after rerolls, you get roughly 3 sixes after rerolls and any vehicle in the game is dead.
And immobilisation is death, before double immobilisation results doubling up HP loss.

Charistoph
19-09-2013, 16:45
Apparently, you can't imagine it. Fifteen shots, ten hit, 3.33 more hit after rerolls, you get roughly 3 sixes after rerolls and any vehicle in the game is dead.
Not quite, some can survive 3 lost Hull Points.


And immobilisation is death, before double immobilisation results doubling up HP loss.
True, but not for that group of Shooting.

Poseidal
19-09-2013, 17:07
True, but not for that group of Shooting.

I always assumed that it would?

With normal shooting, say I fire two lascannon devs, get two pens and then roll immobilised twice; do I lose the effects of one of my immobilised results from that round of shooting?

Charistoph
19-09-2013, 17:33
I always assumed that it would?

With normal shooting, say I fire two lascannon devs, get two pens and then roll immobilised twice; do I lose the effects of one of my immobilised results from that round of shooting?

All shooting for a unit happens at the same time, so every Immobilization result for that unit's shooting happens at the same time and so there isn't a previous or already Immobilized result to cause the additional Hull Point removal.

At least, not until the next unit shoots of course.

Norngahl
19-09-2013, 17:57
A stationary grav cannon can vaporize a MC on a single turn and seriously hurt anything powerful in good armor. If you could take these guns everywhere on 5 men tactical squads, I'd guess many would field 6 of them. Hugged in cover, bring it on, whatever is expensive and comes close dies.

I find it even more scary that bikes can take 2 gravweapons and the searge a combi grav.. men 3 squads is about 360 points or such and you will take immediatly every expensive unit out of the game. and thats just rifles, but what if tacticals with grav rifles AND cannons or such?! at best land speeders lol..

Heck do you know how scary grav weapons are, especially to me, as a Deathwing player? 3 Bikes with the loadout above kill about 1-3 Termies in a single turn, depending on my loadout.. thats between 44-132 points loss for me in a single turn per grav unit.. But the bikes can continue shooting and I won't be able to catch them if they don't want to. My 1500 points army has a 18 Terminators 2 Mortis Contemptor Bodycount. Spread the grav weapons even more and I won't have any chance at all.. Same goes for Nids which will loose their big bugs faster than you can say **** gw.

I think only units that should have had access to grav weapons are hq and the centurions... heck if it is needed add tacticals. The chars can just have a pistol and the centurions are pretty darn expensive so you could threat them like other deathstars. But bikes?! Now when bike armys become more popular through chapter masters with eternal shield and hammer?! Nice. But not for me. I was always pretty much ****ed with DW, but this weapon makes my life a lot harder..

Somerandomidiot
19-09-2013, 18:10
All shooting for a unit happens at the same time, so every Immobilization result for that unit's shooting happens at the same time and so there isn't a previous or already Immobilized result to cause the additional Hull Point removal.

At least, not until the next unit shoots of course.

I'm fairly certain this is incorrect, but I don't have a rulebook here at work to confirm it.

Charistoph
19-09-2013, 18:31
I'm fairly certain this is incorrect, but I don't have a rulebook here at work to confirm it.
There is an exception to this when shooting at Squadrons, of course.

arthurfallz
19-09-2013, 19:05
I'm fairly certain this is incorrect, but I don't have a rulebook here at work to confirm it.

Pg. 13; "This must be declared before rolling To Hit, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together."

Emphasis as in the book. This rule, however, is to illustrate that it doesn't matter if you roll the dice seperately because one character has a different weapon / BS which needs to be isloated. All of the shots are resolved from the unit, then move on to a Wound Pool which is applied against the target unit.

There is nothing I can find that says those Wounds "happen at the same time", and since the Vehicle rules specifically talk about taking more wounds than remaining Hull Points (referencing that you have to keep rolling on the Vehicle Damage Table to see if it blows up, pg. 74), it would suggest (in the absence of contrary direction) that wounds are applied sequentially to a vehicle.

Charistoph
19-09-2013, 20:16
There is nothing I can find that says those Wounds "happen at the same time", and since the Vehicle rules specifically talk about taking more wounds than remaining Hull Points (referencing that you have to keep rolling on the Vehicle Damage Table to see if it blows up, pg. 74), it would suggest (in the absence of contrary direction) that wounds are applied sequentially to a vehicle.

Rolling on the Vehicle Damage Chart happens after removing Hull Points from Glancing and Penetrating Hits., so a Vehicle may easily be Wrecked by the time you roll for results. The only time the rules make a distinction of determing the results of each shot is when shooting at a Squadron.

DoctorTom
20-09-2013, 16:52
Rolling on the Vehicle Damage Chart happens after removing Hull Points from Glancing and Penetrating Hits., so a Vehicle may easily be Wrecked by the time you roll for results. The only time the rules make a distinction of determing the results of each shot is when shooting at a Squadron.

Yes, but it would make sense to use the method for vehicle squadrons even with one vehicle for there to be consistency in results of how things are handled. It doesn't make sense that the presence of other vehicles should influence how to stack the results on the first model. Infantry models are handled consistently (more or less) whether you have one or multiples, it should be the same for vehicles.

This is a digression from the main topic, though,and might be better off handled in the rules forum.

Addressing Norngahl's point on bikes with grav weapons - it makes White Scars armies much scarier (and possibly a reason to go with a "Grav-Scar" list instead of a DA Ravenwing list).

Charistoph
20-09-2013, 17:06
Yes, but it would make sense to use the method for vehicle squadrons even with one vehicle for there to be consistency in results of how things are handled. It doesn't make sense that the presence of other vehicles should influence how to stack the results on the first model. Infantry models are handled consistently (more or less) whether you have one or multiples, it should be the same for vehicles.
Would it make sense? Maybe. But the rules for shooting at a Squadron specifically point out that resolving each hit separately is different from the normal method.

Of course, White Scars would be even scarier if Attack Bikes could take Grav Cannons, no?

Killgore
21-09-2013, 08:15
If Grav cannons were available to other units then there would be little need to buy GW's new Centurion kit

Next edition I bet they would be available to other units

MajorWesJanson
21-09-2013, 10:55
All shooting for a unit happens at the same time, so every Immobilization result for that unit's shooting happens at the same time and so there isn't a previous or already Immobilized result to cause the additional Hull Point removal.

At least, not until the next unit shoots of course.

Going by that logic, that all damage results are resolved simultaneously, does not work. Using the same logic for weapon destroyed results would mean that if you got multiple weapon destroyed results, you would not remove any weapons, potentially randomly destroying the same weapon multiple times.


If Grav cannons were available to other units then there would be little need to buy GW's new Centurion kit

Next edition I bet they would be available to other units

Dreadnoughts and Predators honestly seem like viable options to carry Grav cannons in a recut kit.

Flame Boy
22-09-2013, 10:02
I am quite surprised that grav weapons are as widespread as they are in the marine rulebook. I would have expected them to be a Techmarine/Master of the Forge thing, but no matter. I find it particularly odd that the weapons have no effect on building when it used to say in the rules for Graviton weapons that they were used for demolition purposes. I guess making bunkers collapse in on themselves would be a bit unfair for a weapon pretty much any sergeant can pick up. Since my current active gaming projects are Orks and Eldar, I'm not overly worried about the consequences of grav weapons, especially since the best armour save in my Ork army is still only 4+, and that's pretty rare.